About this Show

FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace

News/Business. An analysis of top newsmakers and events. (CC) (Stereo)

NETWORK
FOX

DURATION
01:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 93 (639 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Obama 21, Benghazi 19, Libya 19, Graham 13, Us 12, U.s. 11, Iran 8, America 7, United States 7, Barack Obama 7, Durbin 7, Israel 6, Gallup 5, Syria 5, Washington 4, Florida 4, Ronald Reagan 4, At&t 4, Liz 3, Obama Administration 3,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  FOX    FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace    News/Business. An analysis of top  
   newsmakers and events. (CC) (Stereo)  

    October 22, 2012
    2:00 - 3:00am PDT  

2:00am
>> chris: i'm chris wallace, the sprint to election day begins with the final presidential debate. ♪ >> chris: as obama and romney face off one last time, on foreign policy, we'll have our own debate. on the terror strike in libya, the upheaval in syria, and, iran's nuclear ambitions. democratic senator dick durbin, versus republican lindsay graham. durbin and graham, only, on fox news sunday. then, it has been a rollercoaster ride in the polls. we'll talk numbers with the man in charge of gallup, the grand daddy of polling firms,
2:01am
editor-in-chief, frank you newport and we are down to the final 16 days of the campaign. we'll ask our sunday panel, what to expect, in the race to the finish line. and, from a tense debate, to laughs over dinner, it was quite a week on the trail. all, right now, on fox news sunday. ♪ >> chris: and, hello, again from fox news in washington. with just 16 days until the election, president obama and governor romney meet one last time monday night for a debate on foreign policy. we want to preview the issues with a debate of our own, dick durbin, the number 2 democrat in the senate joins us from his home state of illinois and a top republican on foreign policy, senator lindsay graham, is in his home state, of south carolina. senators, let's start with breaking news, a report in today's "new york times," that iran and the u.s. have agreed in principle to one on one talks about iran's nuclear programs
2:02am
and the white house said late last night they had not agreed to talks but the u.s., the administration, is open to the idea. senator graham, let me start with you. what do you think of one-on-one talks with iran, and what do you make of the timing of this coming out two weeks before the election? >> well, i think the iranians are trying to take advantage of our election cycle, to continue to talk. as we talk with the iranians, whether it is bilaterally or unilateral unilaterally, they continue to enrich and the vice president and the president said we will do nothing without coordinating with israel. so we've talked with them in moscow and talk with them in baghdad and they continue to enrich, enrich, and, i think the time for talking is over. we should be demanding transparency and access to the program and they doubled the centrifuges, so, i think this is a ploy by the iranians and i hope we are talking to the israelis, and, as we continue to talk, they continue to enrich and they are trying to break apart the coalition. >> chris: what do you think of
2:03am
the timing of the story coming out, one assumes from u.s. sources, not iranian, just two weeks before the election? >> well, i think it is pretty obvious, they are trying to continue a dialogue using our election cycle, and, in a pretty clever way and i hope we don't take the debate and we had a chance in 2009 to speak up during the iranian revolution and we did nothing, it was a huge mistake and i'd take to talk with israel before we make any major decisions with iran. >> chris: senator durbin, israel's ambassador to the u.s., michael orin says in "the new york times" article israel should not be rewarded with one-on-one talks with the u.s. and what they should get, instead are tougher sanctions. >> i can tell you, chris the president put together a strong global coalition imposing sanctions on the iranians. including not only europe, obviously, which is -- made a dramatic impact on the iranian economy but russia as well.
2:04am
and this month of october, the currency in iran declined 40% in value. there is unrest in the streets of tehran, and the leaders in iran are feeling it. that is exactly what we wanted the sanctions program to do and this is an indication, i think a clear one, the sanctions regime, president obama but together with israel and many nations around the world, is putting pressure on iran to sit down and finally acknowledge that they cannot have a nuclear weapon. i think it is' positive step forward. >> chris: and, briefly, why, if we have this international coalition, why not continue talks in the t5-plus one, as it is called, by do it one-on-one instead. >> there are many options. if direct negotiations are a path toward a peaceful resolution with iran getting up on the notion of nuclear weapons pursue it and, as nicholas burns said, the negotiator for president george w. bush, in
2:05am
tehran, it would be unconscionable for us not to meet and talk. he said we don't want to drive into the brick wall of war in 2013, without sitting down and speaking to the iranians. >> chris: gentlemen, let's turn to laeshgs aibya and... >> if i could say, the purpose of sanctions is to top the iranians of building a nuclear program and enriching iran and it is a miserable failure. in the four years we've talked to them they've quadrupled the amount of 20% enriched uranium, and, there is a pattern, we need to end it before it gets out of hand. >> chris: gentlemen, let's turn to libya and the question is whether or not the president and his administration, could have done more beforehand, to protect those four americans who were killed in benghazi on the anniversary of september 11th. we now know there were 8 attacks, 8 attacks against western interests in benghazi, in the six months before the attack and we now know that u.s.
2:06am
ambassador chris stevens sent repeated memos to washington, even on the day he was killed, asking for more security. senator graham, is it conceivable that president obama didn't know how dangerous benghazi was, for americans? >> no. no administration will send the president of the united states out into the public arena, not telling him about an attack in april and june, and, tell me about the consulate attack in benghazi, what do you think about it, and the president said i don't know and i find that inconceivable. and this is going to be a case study, studied for years of a break down of national security, and, failed presidential leadership and senior members of the obama administration, failed miserably and the benghazi, libya conflict was becoming a death trap and the british left and the red cross left, because of the deteriorating security environment and we were requesting additional security and it was denied because we wanted to normalize relationships with a nonexistent
2:07am
government and we should have closed the consulate long before september 11th, or heavily reinforced it and i put that on the president of the united states. this is a nation security break down, before, during and after the attacks. >> chris: we all agree the president doesn't get into the weeds and decided the security level in benghazi, but given all of these warnings, why didn't he and his administration do more, whether it was to beef up security or to close the consulate, why didn't it do more to protect those four americans, who were killed? >> well, chris, i can tell you senator graham and i were in a closed, classified briefing just i guess two weeks ago in washington when we came together with secretary clinton and the cia and others and they are engageded in an investigation of what occurred here and that is what we have to have. think back in history. it hasn't been long ago. we lost over 230 marines, in the barracks in beirut, lebanon
2:08am
under president ronald reagan. these acts of terrorism, as horrific as they are, have to be understood as being part of living in a dangerous world. now, lets ask the honest questions, let's gather the evidence and make sure we understand exactly what did occur. but jumping to conclusions, i think, darrell issa does a documentary dump on his web site of sensitive information about those in libya who were helping keep america safe, it shows the lengths many go to to try to politicize the situation. >> chris: senator graham, is that what you are doing, politicizing the situation no thank god for a media that asks question and some republican control of one branch of the government and if you left it up to this administration to inform the american people we'd still be believing it was a spontaneous riot spurred by video. there was no mob, no riot. and, so, no, i am totally convinced this is going to go down in history as one of the most major breakdowns of
2:09am
national security in a very long time, exhibit a of a failed national security strategy and the conflict was under siege for months, and it had been attacked twice and everybody else has left benghazi but us and we were refused additional security request because we wanted to normalize relationships and over 7 hours on september 11th, the day of heightened concern throughout the world, for americans, the anniversary of the september 11th attack the consulate was attacked for over 7 hours and there were no land forces available to reinforce the consulate and no air power sent over to help these people, for over 7 hours. and, after the attack, you had one convoluted, distorted, deceiving explanation... >> chris: we'll get to the accounts, the shifting accounts in a moment but i want to press my question with you, again, senator graham, you didn't answer. why didn't -- with all of the warnings, we had repeated memos from the ambassador, and repeated requests from the security team on the ground, why didn't the administration do
2:10am
more to protect these people in benghazi? >> you know, that question is going to be answered, chris when we gather the information together but let me also -- >> but, senator, a skeptic would say, yes, and guess when the investigation is going to end? sometime after election day. >> shouldn't this investigation be done in a thorough, professional and complete way? as senator graham can tell you you, when we sat down for the classified briefing they said it was days, literally days before they could put the investive team on the ground. >> chris: doesn't that tell you, how dangerous it was, if you can't get the fbi there for weeks. >> yes. and we lost four americans and look at the situation on the ground, immediately afterwards, the libyans were demonstrating in the streets in support of the united states. it is a volatile situation and it's always easier the day after to say how you could have won the football game but it boils down, to let's get the facts together and the idea chairman
2:11am
issa will dump the names of people who are in libya, who support americans, in an effort to get a political toe-hold in the election is unconscionable and unacceptable and i'm sure senator graham doesn't support that. >> chris: let's move on to the question of the shifting story after the fact. the president said in the debate this week, on the day after the attack on september 12th, that he called it an act of terror. here's what actually happened in the rose garden. >> president barack obama: yesterday, four of these extra ordinary americans were killed on an attack in our diplomatic post in benghazi. we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. of course yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. no acts of terror will ever
2:12am
shake the resolve of this great nation. >> chris: senator graham, we did it that way to show that there was quite a gap between various things that he was discussing, in the rose garden. did the president, did his team call this an act of terror from the start and do you really believe that they were playing politics with the way they were spinning out the story. >> well, i believe the administration has a history of playing politics, with foreign policy. this is the very administration that leaked every detail of our bin laden raid, to make themselves look good and the administration that leaked details of cyber attacks against iran. the underwear bomber plot was foiled. and, they leaked the details of the double agent we had that put our allies at risk and operatives at risk and so the question is, would an administration who leaks detailed classified information overa series of weeks to create a narrative they are strong on foreign policy, would they deceive and deny and the reason they do not want to admit it was an al-qaeda-inspired militia
2:13am
attack that could have been seen coming for months, in a deteriorating security environment where the british and red cross and everybody left but us, is it undercuts the narrative, by killing bin laden al qaeda was dismantled on the run and the wars are receding and that is exhibit a of our failed foreign policy, al qaeda is alive and well in libya, iraq, syria and the wars are not receding and what happened in benghazi is a case study in failure at every phase, before, during, and after and what they did after the attack, i think is just absolutely unacceptable. they tried to confuse, delay and deny, create a narrative, this was a spontaneous event when it was not and the truth of the matter is, benghazi, libya, the conflict was a death trap, long in the making and this is failed presidential leadership at its worst. >> chris: let me bring in senator durbin, despite what the president said, his team repufd
2:14am
to call it an act of terror or a week. >> it's not case of protests directed united states, writ large or u.s. policy, it was in response to a video that is offensive. >> a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in cairo. as a consequence of the video. >> chris: now, during the second debate, the president said that he is offended by any suggestions, senator durbin, that he or his administration was playing politics with this. how do you explain, then, the continued refusal to call it terrorism, even as the evidence proved that it was? >> look at the article by david ignatius. he puts on the record the cia's posting, the information they sent to washington after our ambassador and the others were killed and they said, they believed it had something to do with the video. but they were going to gather the evidence to be sure. and, then, of course over the next few days, more information came in. that was an indication that the
2:15am
fog of war, they say was operative in the situation. and what i find really hard to accept and disagree with my friend, senator graham is this notion about the president's foreign policy. the president has been a strong and steady leader. we have responsibly ended the war in iraq, we are going to end the war in afghanistan, and, al qaeda as a shadow of its former self and usama bin laden is mold derring in a watery grave somewhere and we've put enough pressure on iran with the sanctions regime, so they will not develop a nuclear weapon they want to sit down and talk. these are positive developments, moving us toward a more stable nation, more stable world, and, when we faced threats of terrorism, every direction. >> chris: senator durbin, i -- senator durbin -- i hate to interrupt, we are running out of time. i have one question: and you are quite right, there is a report that the cia put out talking points that said that it was a spontaneous demonstration. but, if that was what the cia's
2:16am
intelligence was, why does obama -- president obama claim that he called it terror the day after? >> well, of course it involves an act of terror whether the result of a spontaneous demonstration or something planned. you know, this is unacceptable that you would attack another embassy and kill the ambassador. it is terrorism in any form, whatever... >> and, the first week they were asked repeatedly -- >> no, of course not. let me try to channel candy crowley for a moment. the president said acts of terror and play the top on fox any way you wish but he said it and it was an act of terror and we were waiting to find out what the real motivation and driving force was behind it and we did a thorough investigation to get to the bottom of it and as the president said hold those accountable who did it. >> chris: senator graham, you get the last word. >> chris... chris... this was not a spontaneous riot. there was never a mob. there is a video of the conflict. nobody was there. and, ambassador stevens met the turkish ambassador, and, there
2:17am
were 125 people, using heavy mortars and was a 7 hour pre-planned attack and the intel is al qaeda is on the rise and everybody else left but us, the cia chief said this was a militia attack within 24 hours, and the president of libya said it was an al-qaeda attack. there was no mob, there was no riot. iraq is falling apart, bin laden may be dead, al qaeda is on the rise, and if you don't believe me, go to the training camps in iraq that came up after we have left and syria is a contagion affecting the region, 32,000 people have been killed while we are doing nothing. islamic extremists are infiltrating syria and as to iran, they have quadruple the amount of enriched uranium to make a bomb they had before obama got into office. nothing is working, the whole region is falling apart. leading from behind is a failure and overselling the death of bin laden, finally caught up with him in libya. >> chris: now i feel like one of
2:18am
the moderators, because you both ran over me, senator graham, senator durbin, thanks and thanks for joining us today and we'll see if the candidates do as well as you guys did, tomorrow night. >> thanks, chris. >> chris: we now have sad news to report. former senator, south dakota senator george mcgovern died this morning, the democratic nominee for president in 1972. losing to richmond nixon. he was 90 years old. up next, the head of gallup, the granddaddy of all polling helps us sort out all the conflicting numbers on the presidential horse race. ♪ our abundant natural gas is already saving us money, producing cleaner electricity, putting us to work here in america and supporting wind and solar. though all energy development comes with some risk, we're committed to safely and responsibly producing natural gas. it's not a dream. america's natural gas... putting us in control of our energy future, now.
2:19am
i'i invest in what i know.r. i turned 65 last week. i'm getting married. planning a life. there are risks, sure. but, there's no reward without it. i want to be prepared for the long haul. i see a world bursting with opportunities. india, china, brazil, ishares, small-caps, large-caps, ishares. industrials. low cost. every dollar counts. ishares. income. dividends. bonds. i like bonds. ishares. commodities. diversification. choices. my own ideas. ishares. i want to use the same stuff the big guys use. ishares. 8 out of 10 large, professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. introducing the ishares core, etfs for the heart of your portfolio. tax efficient and low cost building blocks to help you keep more of what you earn. call your advisor. visit ishares.com. ishares. ishares. yeah, ishares. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing.
2:20am
>>
2:21am
>> chris: the gallup organization has been polling presidential races since 1936, why its latest survey is attracting a lot of attention. gallup's 7-day tracking poll now shows romney leading obama, 51% to 45, among likely voters. that is a 6-point margin. in comparison the real clear politics average of recent polls shows a dead heat with obama leading by 1/10 of a point. joining us now from new york is frank newport, gallup's editor-in-chief. how do you explain the fact that your poll is so out of line with 7 other national polls, which show obama with a small lead, or romney with a lead of just one point? >> well, there are many different explanations for that. we spend most of our time, chris, looking at our own poll and methodology, how we're doing it. a 7 day rolling average and the one you quoted is through last
2:22am
friday, a large sample size, 3700 registered voters and 2700 likely voters in the sample and we don't spend a lot of time looking at how other polls might have been done and a week ago we would have said the race was dead even ourselves in the "gallup poll" but night by night with the large sample we aggregate we have seen romney move out to that 51/45, 7-day average we talk about and that is what we are showing among likely voters, nationally and registered voters, closer to being even. >> chris: you also had a poll of 12 battleground states and let's look at that: it shows romney leading by four points in the 12 battleground states and 50-46 and the gender gap among women is gone, obama leads by only one point, 49%, to 48% and again most polls show obama leading by more in the battleground states than -- and with a much bigger lead among women? >> that is right and that was a couple weeks ago when the field
2:23am
work was done and to some duomee is ancient history and nationally now, obama has a lead among women, a 7-point lead among women, down from where he was in '08 and, he is minu maintaining his strength among women and obama's bigger problem is he has lost more among men than where he was in '08. >> chris: the obama camp, not surprisingly, is pushing back hard and they say your polls are, quote, way out of line, and have deep flaws. how do you respond to the obama campaign? >> well, that is not unusual. going back to dr. george gallup who founded the company, as you said in 1936, he found a heated commentary from either side on polls and we found in the 6 election cycles i have been involved here at gallup going back to 1992, people coming at you from either side if they don't like the results. we do not have deep flaws in how
2:24am
we do things, we are highly transparent and have a team of me methoddologists and we tweak sampling and, we added more cell phones to take into account the growing number of people who don't even talk on land lines, with these phone samples so i think our methodology is extremely solid. and we are very open about how we do it so i would say, it is not unusual, of course, people would fight back that don't like what your findings are. >> chris: let's talk a little bit and maybe get into the weeds, because people seem very interested in polling methodology, this time. the big complaint that is made about the "gallup poll" is how you judge who is a likely voter and they say, you put too much emphasis on how enthusiastic a voter is and therefore you may tend to overstate the effect of a big event, like, for instance the first debate, which may have boosted one side, in the case's romney's supporters and,
2:25am
depressed another side in this case, obama supporters. and what about the argument that there is too much -- and therefore, we see these big swings, based on enthusiasm or intensity, based on events in the campaign? >> well, you know, how you isolate likely voters is a very fascinating method logical question and, actually enthusiasm is not a question we ask when we measure likely voters. we use 7 questions, that we have tweaked over the years but they include questions about knowing where people vote, how you vote, if you vote by mail, how much attention you you pay to the campaign and how much thought you have given to it and how certain you are to voting your own self-definition and history of voting which we take into account for young people who couldn't have voted previously and put it together an isolate likely voters. it can be susceptible to events that the environment but that is the whole idea. if events in the environment cause one group or the other to become more likely to vote based on the measures that is what it reflects and, when we have,
2:26am
chris, a democratic incumbent, as we do now, running for re-election, the likely voters make a big difference. back in 1996 had all voters voted based on our estimate, clinton would have beat dole by 15 points and he only won in the high single turnout was disproportional to republicans an 1980 we had another democratic running and when the dust settled, ronald reagan won more than we or anybody else had said because the republicans were more energized and likely voters, trying to take into account the factors we mentioned, who will show up and who isn't is extremely important, particularly in an election like this which may have lower turnout than we saw in '08. >> chris: well, let's talk about the other big controversy, it isn't just for you but all pollsters. and that is the question of how do you weight by party. what percentage of republicans, what percentage of democrats, some people say do you use the 2008 model? as to how many -- what the percentage of republicans and
2:27am
democrats are or the 2010 model which is different? how do you weight by party. >> we do not weight by party at you a, we never have and don't now. we think party identification is an attitudinal variable that fluctuates like who you will vote for and we let that float and whatever people tell us at the end of the survey, as we say integr gallup, and we measure ae end for the informational purposes, do you consider yourself a democratic or republican and there are no national numbers on party identifications and the census doesn't measure it and the exit polls in '08 are flawed because they are a a poll and certainly nobody things nothing will have changed over four years and you don't have to register in some states, there is no national registry of what party, quote, should be and we know what age and gender is, the census measures that. but we don't weight -- >> critics ask, if we see a poll and see it is 39% democrats in the poll and 30% republicans,
2:28am
that doesn't necessarily mean that it is biased or skewed? >> no. you can have -- that is like saying you see a poll that shows obama up by 9 points over romney, is that biased or skewed? it may be a particular poll has a spurt as we call in the business, you know, margin of error, unusual one way or the other but usually if the ballot is going one direction the party follows behind it. party i.d. is as much in many ways an attitude as who will you vote for and we certainly don't think -- and actually most of the major national polls don't weight by party i.d. that's' concept which doesn't have a lot of science behind it. >> chris: a little over a minute left. as we look at the race, 16 days out, where do you see it? >> well, we don't make predictions here at gal lup and again i told you, a week ago we had it even and now romney is up, but that movement suggests it could move the other way over the next week or two. as of today, certainly romney on the national level has an edge, what our data is showing, all
2:29am
the swing state polls and individual states are very hard to make sense of but they look close themselves but i think right now, i wouldn't predict, we have two weeks to go and a big debate tomorrow night. >> chris: looking historically over the long history of gallup polling a 6-point lead which you have now, 16 days before an election, how solid is that? >> well, not solid at all in the sense things can change, change from a week ago, and we might talk again next sunday, nice to talk with you again and see where we stand and it could be significantly different, things move in elections and they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on both sides to move voters and the campaign has not stopped. it is full steam ahead at this point. >> chris: frank, thank you, and thanks for talking with us today and we'll follow your poll and the others, all the way to election day. >> my pleasure. >> chris: up next the controversy over the benghazi attack keeps growing. we'll ask our sunday group how it will shape tomorrow's foreign policy debate and the rest of the campaign. machines, tools, people making stuff.
2:30am
companies have to invest in making things. infrastructure, construction, production. we need it now more than ever. chevron's putting more than $8 billion dollars back in the u.s. economy this year. in pipes, cement, steel, jobs, energy. we need to get the wheels turning. i'm proud of that. making real things... for real. ...that make a real difference. ♪
2:31am
2:32am
introducing at&t u-verse high speed internet with more speed options, reliability and wi-fi hot spots than ever. go to our website below to get u-verse high speed internet for just 14.95 a month for 12 months with a one-year price guarantee. it's all the speed you need all at a great price. our newly expanded advanced digital network gives you more of what you enjoy online. and with at&t, our wireless gateway turns your home into a private wi-fi hot spot that connects your wi-fi devices and can even save on your smart phone data usage at home. go to our website below to get at&t u-verse high speed internet for just 14.95 a month for 12 months with a one-year price guarantee.
2:33am
that includes access on-the-go to our entire national wi-fi hot spot network, with over 30,000 hot spots. at&t u-verse high speed internet. now on our newly expanded advanced digital network, a connection your whole house can count on. ♪ ♪ >> president barack obama: every piece of information we get, as we got it, laid it out another american people. >> for him to say every piece of information they got, they laid out to the american people, is one of the most disingenuous statements i've ever heard. >> chris: president obama and senator mccain with very different views about how open this administration has been about the attack in benghazi. that killed four americans. time now for our sunday group, brit hume, fox news senior political analyst, liz marlantes
2:34am
of the christian science monitor, bill kristol from the weekly standard and fox news political analyst juan williams, before we get to libya, brit, what do you make of the lead story in the "new york times" today, the u.s. and iran agreed in principle to one-on-one talks, about the nuclear program. >> first they agreed to talk and it was all set, or suggesting it was all set and then, there was the white house came back and said, no, no, no, we haven't really agreed in any final way to anything. so, i think it remains to be seen and also, obviously the question is, the one that senator graham raised, which is, all right, we sit down and talk to them, they love to talk. meanwhile, the nuclear program goes forward. and, i think that is sort of where we come out of that. >> chris: the way i read the article, is "the times" said they've agreed in principle and the denial from the national security council was weak and they said we haven't agreed to the actual talks but we're open to the idea and it sounded to me
2:35am
like a non denial-denial and do you think it is a boost for obama and helps in the debate? the idea of, well, we may have a break through and my policies are working. >> it will give him a talking point but i don't you would classify it as a breakthrough, because there are light of questions about what it means but sure it will give him a talking point and the way the obama campaign has tried to frame the iran argument against romney is really, you know, we're doing everything we can to not go to war, and he's the one who would actually, possibly take to us war, really trying to emphasize that there is not a lot of difference between what romney is saying and what obama is saying unless he's saying we should go to war. so i think in that sense it helps obama flesh out his argument but i'd be surprised if he classified it as a huge break through. >> chris: i want to switch to libya, bill, two big developments, first we found out that u.s. ambassador chris stevens had sent -- you can see there on the screen, a series of
2:36am
memos to the state department over the last few months, asking repeatedly for more security and reporting how dangerous libya was. question: can the president fairly be held responsible for the fact that we failed to protect our people there? >> listen, the american ambassador and three other americans were killed by al qaeda affiliated individuals in benghazi, a country where we hoped depose the dictator, a good thing a year ago and have done nothing to basically help secure the situation, no marines were there to guard our ambassador and didn't pay any attention to what was happening on the ground and, we also had an intelligence station nearby, that was overrun and the consulate obviously was torched and it is a humiliation for the united states and the tragedy is the four who were killed and has repercussions else wherever in the arab world and gives a sense as the turmoil goes on in the world, which is hopeful and worrisome, we are not on top of things and shaping it in a
2:37am
hopeful way, we are in retreat and it's bad for the country and the administration. >> chris: juan, on the specific question of what they could have done before hand, to save these guys' lives, when you hear the security people on the ground in libya were asking, over and over again for more security and now, a memo, on the day he died, chris stevens, saying how dangerous it was in benghazi and, libya was, how responsible can the administration be held for failing to respond to that. >> both president obama and secretary clinton have said they are in charge and are responsible, the buck stops here. i think in realistic terms, we know any request for additional security will not even go to the secretary of state and the testimony on capitol hill, i believe charlene williams, one of the under secretaries in charge of security said it got as high as her and she made the determination and i'll add there is an important distinction, to
2:38am
be made between tripoli, the capital and benghazi, according to the testimony on capitol hill even with additional forces in place, additional forces, the request was for tripoli, not benghazi, that the heavy armament used by the people who perpetrated the attacks could not have been topped by a few additional men on the ground. >> a couple 0 point about that. sun element of any added security would have stayed with the ambassador, he's the person principally... >> chris: he specifically asked for more bodyguards. >> and we can't know what effect it would have had on that night. dreadful night, in benghazi. second point about this is, the woman at the state department who made the call acted within the framework of policy and the policy toward libya was, attitude was, this is now a country of friendlies, and helped them depose the hated dictator and we're normalizing the situation there and we have good ties. libya is one of the success
2:39am
stories. so, the idea of sending in extra security, because the place is in bad shape, would be against that story line. so, one can understand how a senior official of state would be hesitant to do that and, resist doing that. now, it has been said that the failure was not -- did not have to do with a lack of money. there was testimony to that effect. so, you know, the attempts to blame this on stinginess in congress i don't think worked well. this was a major security -- and i think intelligence failure, and it grows to some extent, i think out of the attitude embodied in the administration policy. >> chris: there was a specific memo in march from the security personnel in tripoli, to the state department talking about the effort by state to change the -- transition from an emergency to a normalized situation. so, there does seem to have been that move and, i want to talk
2:40am
about the other development we learned this week, liz, we now e no the cia and this is what dick durbin referred to, put out talking points on september 15, the day before susan rice went on all of those sunday shows, and here's what the cia said: the demonstrations in benghazi we spontaneously inspired by the protests at the u.s. embassy in cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the u.s. consulate and subsequently its annex. there are indication extremists participated in the violent demonstration. liz, does that get ambassador rice off the hook? was she following her brief? >> this is what rice said all along, is that, you know, even before the talking points came out, we knew there was a cia intelligence document saying that, that had been given to the hill and, rice and others. and, that she was just reporting on the best information that she had been given, at the time and i do think, you know, to some extent, one thing that happened, i feel like the debate has shifted a little bit, recently,
2:41am
from, you know, the -- all the questions about what the -- exactly the administration said in the aftermath and when they changed their story and all of that, which, to some extent, i think, you know, romney has scored points on that, but, it has seemed like a political argument, also, to a lot of voters, i would imagine and as we saw obama was able to turn it around in the last debate and i think the questions, the fact the debate seems to be shifting a little more to questions about what happened in the run-up to the attack and what the failings may have been there, i think romney will be on stronger ground, there. >> chris: but, let me just bring in, bill, quickly. we have less than a minute, do you think it gets susan rice off the hook? >> not really. doesn't get the administration off the hook. the administration misunderstood what happened, even though they were on the phone with the state department, as things happened, there was no demonstration, a and, b, the video had nothing to do it and, those two facts and what was the point of susan rice said, sitting here, the video,
2:42am
the video, the video, and what did president obama say two weeks later at the united nations, mentioned the video and one time mentioned al qaeda. >> the cia talking points are almostinex-publicable, the -- the talking point, the cia, the whole thing was inconsistent with what the state department knew and the state department can put out all the talking points it wants, but, the ambassador was in the position to though better, and i suspect -- >> we're out of time and i don't want to steal from the next segment, we have to take a break, when we come back we'll discuss what to look for in the final 16 days in the race for the white house.
2:43am
2:44am
>> chris: check out foxnewssunday.com for behind-the-scenes features, panel-plus and our special monday preview of the week ahead. you can find it at foxnewssunday.com and be sure to let us know what you ♪
2:45am
>> president barack obama: you
2:46am
have heard of the new deal. you have heard of the square deal, the fair deal. mitt romney's trying to give you a sketchy deal. >> they have no agenda for the future, no agenda for america. no agenda for a second term. it is a good thing, they won't have a second term. >> chris: president obama and governor romney continuing to attack in advance of their final debate, monday night in florida. and we're back now with the panel. well, the early indications from the polls are, as heated as it was, the second presidential debate, the town hall, had very little impact on the polls. it didn't really move voters one way or the other and the majority have made up their mind and, in short of a major blunted blunder, what do you expect from the impact of tomorrow night's poll. >> poll? >> chris: debate. >> the second debate didn't move things a lot but it may have stopped romney's momentum going into the debate and you look at the polls and there is a little
2:47am
bit of an increase for president obama now, even as mitt romney maintains the lead. what you are really looking at is advertising now, states like florida, i think still are in play and there's lots of advertising and the southern states now, north carolina, in particular, you start to see, i think, romney take hold but overall people are looking at the swing states, and, obama retained the lead even in a controversial state like iowa. >> chris: let's look, at the latest real clear politics, electoral map and what they do is average the most recent polls, state by state and it flips like a -- i don't know, a pointalist painting, and it shows romney in various shades of red with 206 electoral votes, and, states solid or leading obama in shades of blue, 201 electoral votes and the number of states in gray, actually growing, more and more toss-up
2:48am
states, ten states now, 131 electoral votes, reminder, it takes 270 electoral votes to be elected president. so what do you make of that map and the fact that the number of states, brit, too close to call is growing, not decreasing. >> the most striking thing about the map when i saw it, was, holy cow, romney-ryan have a slight lead in electoral votes. that is the first time that has occurred, in the cycle. so, that confirms, i think, the trend that has been evident since the first debate. and, you know, these -- the question really is, whether this lead, small, or large, depending on whose poll you are looking at, romney and ryan seem to be enjoying in many of the polls, will soon translate into places like ohio, where they don't appear to be ahead. i don't think he got a mere bounce out of the first debate. i think he got a surge and it may have faded some but it still persists and we keep seeing it
2:49am
in the polling and if it continues he may well be on a course to upset the president and win the election. >> chris: i talked, liz, to a top obama advisor this week and he suggested -- didn't say it but he was suggesting, and it picks up on what juan was saying, the southeastern swing states of florida an north carolina and virginia are beginning to move romney and now have what seems to be their last -- this obama camp, the final firewall in the midwest, ohio, iowa and wisconsin. >> absolutely. it is ironic, because not long ago i felt like we were talking about how romney was really having all the problems in ohio and should even pull out and find another path to victory. and, now you are actually hearing talk about whether obama should pull out of florida. and, "the new york times," there was something about that, this weekend, and, i think, you know, in that sense, the midwest is really where this is going to be won, and, although romney does have paths to victory without ohio he still very much would
2:50am
like to win ohio because it threads the needle awfully close if he doesn't and so far it has been obama's firewall. he has had a lead in that state throughout the entire campaign cycle and still is ahead, not by as much, certainly, romney narrowed the gap but pretty much every poll shows obama ahead in ohio and that makes romney's list that much harder. >> chris: bill, starting with the debate tomorrow night what do romney and obama need to do in these final 16 days? >> two different private polls in the last two days have romney down one in ohio and he has gained a lot in ohio and people say, he's behind in ohio and he's moved 5, 6, 7 points and he can move 2, 3, 4, especially ohio is demographically not bad for romney and generally out performed the national average and if romney is up a point or two, it is hard to believe he'll trail in the national vote in ohio and what romney has to do tomorrow night is be presidential and less the challenger to the president and the prosecutor of the president's agenda and has to be the next president of the united
2:51am
states. and in a foreign policy debate. voters don't have a checklist, do you agree with me on abortion or guns or medicare and, most voters, very few have a firm view of exactly what should be done and negotiating strategies, with iran or exactly how we handle syria. they want to see especially a challenger to incumbent president, want to see him as someone who is up to being president with the judgment and the maturity, and knowledge and, toughness and sort of soundness, to be president and i think for romney, tomorrow night if he can be the next president of the united states and not a kind of guy who is arguing with the current president and challenging him, and fact checking him, i think if he will be presidential tomorrow night he is in pretty good shape. >> chris: how do you think he should play, not prosecuting, but play libya? >> i think he should stipulate a terrible thing happened, a set back for us and stipulate the obama administration has not handled it well and, be more
2:52am
about what -- what he'd do over the next four years and less picking on every flaw of the obama administration, it is hard to resist, if you are me or mitt romney who sees the flaws and wants to prosecute the case, against the obama administration. but, i think, the key for tomorrow night is to be less of a prosecutor and more of the next president. >> chris: and, if you were advising president obama? what would you say he should do tomorrow night. >> well, i think bill is on target and i don't think going back to libya will play and the top people in both campaigns don't -- they don't think they are going back to libya in the same power, i think some conservatives would like, given how big that issue has been but i think for president obama it has to be that he has a greater depth of knowledge about foreign policy, having been the president, having dealt with foreign leaders and if he can demonstrate that romney really doesn't know the spiel and has no experience here, and secondly he has to speak to young pep people and women, and the
2:53am
interview you had with frank gallup -- frank newport, with gallup, you see, young people, the turnout levels and women will be key to the election and if president obama is able to say, this is a warmonger i'm dealing with, all he is is talk in -- he lacks the sophistication to negotiate and pull us out of war and i pulled us out of afghanistan an iraq, will be a winning hand for the president. >> chris: he and biden both made the claim, romney will get us into another war. >> correct and that is speaking to americans generally who are war weary and that is specifically to american women bill, how does romney handle that. >> you read ronald reagan's answer, the first and only debate in 1980, the first question was, governor reagan, your opponent, accused you of being a risk take your and warmongering and likely to get us into war and ronald reagan said, i'm for peace, constraints and i have children and grandchildren and the last thing i want to do is see them fight
2:54am
abroad and here's why my policies are less risky than the current democratic president -- >> and here's what obama would say, what exactly are the differences between my policies and your policies? even with regard to israel. >>nd the answer will cull baome back. >> you can't have it both ways, is he a warmonger or the policies are not that different and if the iranians want to negotiate, he'll say, i will be a better and tougher negotiator than president obama what failed in the negotiation. >> chris: panel, we'll see you next week, don't need to watch the debate tomorrow night, you basically saw it here! check out panel plus where our group picks up with a discussion on the web site, foxnewssunday.com and we'll post the video before noon eastern time and make sure and follow us on twitter, @foxnewssunday. up next we go on the trail. and every day since, we've worked hard to keep it. bp has paid over twenty-three billion dollars to help people and businesses who were affected,
2:55am
and to cover cleanup costs. today, the beaches and gulf are open for everyone to enjoy -- and many areas are reporting their best tourism seasons in years. we've shared what we've learned with governments and across the industry so we can all produce energy more safely. i want you to know, there's another commitment bp takes just as seriously: our commitment to america. bp supports nearly two-hundred-fifty thousand jobs in communities across the country. we hired three thousand people just last year. bp invests more in america than in any other country. in fact, over the last five years, no other energy company has invested more in the us than bp. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. today, our commitment to the gulf, and to america, has never been stronger.
2:56am
>> chris: a presidential campaign this week featured a knock down, drag out debate, the invention of new words, and, some laughs at a white tie dinner. all to be found, "on the trail." ♪ >> i had a question and the question was, how much did you -- >> president barack obama: you want me to answer it. i'm happy to answer the question. >> i love these debates.
2:57am
you know, these things are great. >> president barack obama: he'll wait until after the election to explain a plan to you. and they don't have a pleasant surprise in store for you. >> how are you? ♪ >> president obama is not telling you what his second term plan would be. >> romney's plans were awful sketchy. sketchy. folks, i don't think they were just sketchy, i think they were etch-a-sketchy. >> the spirit of sesame street, the president's remarks are brought to you by the letter "o" and this number $16 trillion. >> president barack obama: in 2008, i was attacked as a celebrity because i was so popular with our allies overseas and i have to say i'm impressed with how well governor romney avoided that problem. >> really, no kidding.
2:58am
>> president barack obama: to say you are for equal pay for equal work and keep refusing to say whether or not you'd sign a bill to protect equal pay for equal work you might have rom-nesia. >> reduced to petty attacks and silly word games. watch it. the obama campaign has become the incredible shrinking campaign. >> chris: and, just two weeks from tuesday, the candidates stop talking and we, the voters, finally get our say. now, this program note: tune into this fox station and fox news channel, 9:00 p.m. monday for the final presidential debate. and that's it for today. have a great week. and we'll see you next fox news sunday. ♪ captioning by, closed captioning services, inc.
2:59am